Fishing for stocked fish.

On Sep 16, 7:09 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:16 am, Mike wrote:



Considerations on angling for stock fish.

I have a numbre of objections to angling for stocked rainbow trout.
These are based entirely on the facts known to me, and are not a
result of "snobbery" or any other such silly considerations, as some
people seem to assume.

1. The use of such fish is a massive drain on the environment.

2. There is no sensible comparison whatsoever between such fish and
any wild fish.

3. Although such fish may appear outwardly similar to wild fish,
after a period in suitable conditions, they do not behave like wild
fish. In many cases being almost tame, and can be caught easily using
various tricks, or completely outlandish concoctions such as power
bait, to which they have been accustomed artificailly. They may also
be easily caught using crushed trout pellets. Many of the flies used
to catch such fish have no counterparts in nature, and are taken by
the fish mainly as a result of their extreme conditioning during
rearing to react to food items in a particular manner. They have been
been conditioned to do so, and rarely possess even a fraction of the
wariness of wild fish. Especialy when in shoals, which they often
maintain until they are caught or die, they are extremely competitive.

4. In the majority of cases, these fish are badly contaminated with
accumulated poisons and toxins. This is also a result of being fed on
processed fishmeal, which concentrates various toxins, mainly in the
fatty cells of such fish, and also the chenical and other complex drug
residues used in their production.

5. I find the production of such animals purely for the purpose of
playing with them distasteful. They are produced at great cost,
damage, and danger to the environment, purely for the personal
gratification of anglers who wish to fish for them. This is not at all
the same thing as directly farming a food source.

6 As a result of the concentration on such practices, rivers and other
natural environments are being more and more negelected, and even
considered "inferior", because nothing even remotely resembling the
number and amount of fish can be caught there, and anglers
expectations have as a result of this, been raised far beyond what is
normal, or even remotely sensible in this regard. massive amounts of
money and resources are being wasted in order to provide personal and
"convenient" gratification to anglers, which would be far better spent
on improving the environment, and not in activel destroying it.

7. Also as a result of conditioning, many of these fish will only
feed at certain times, corresponding to the feeding times in the
hatcheries and feeding stews in which they were reared. Such aberrant
behaviour is often referred to as "the evening rise". In some places
where the fish have time to become acclimatised, ( although they never
entirely lose their conditioning), this may even be the case, but it
is mainly the result of conditioning to feed at a certain time.

There are a number of other reasons as well, but those are the main
ones.

TL
MC

Good post Mike. There is definitely counter points to be,
respectfully, made.

1) In Colorado, there is an exceptional fishery in the mountain and
plain lakes that, up until a 100 years ago were completely devoid of
fish. A lot of private hatcheries stocked the water including the
famous boulder rod and gun club. This activity *created* teh fishery.

2) There is also the consideration that stocked trout in places like
St. Vrain State Park, old gravel quarries, absorb a tremendous amount
of recreational pressure.

3) The license revenue generated from stocked trout draws interest and
moneys for research.

4) 100% of the Brown, Rainbow and Brook trout fishery is the
descendant result of stocking programs.

5) In many cases the very nicest fish you catch, one full of color,
fight and firm healthy trout is simply the multiple year hold over.

Personally, I get the Jones to bang a few stockers and eat them at
least once or twice a season. Some of the new diets makes the flesh
orange and the fish relatively tasty, especially brined and smoked.

I'm not too proud to crack a cool one and take a few of the stocked
trout out of he

http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/StVrain/

In fact, they did something pretty cool out there last year. What used
to be the back ponds that you could drive all around have been closed
off as hiking access only. If you walk a mile or two you can leave
just about all the rest of the fishermen.
Best regards,

Tim

Dang, I sure wish I would have proof-read that.

On 17 Sep, 03:09, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
On Sep 16, 10:16 am, Mike wrote:



Good post Mike. There is definitely counter points to be,
respectfully, made.

1) In Colorado, there is an exceptional fishery in the mountain and
plain lakes that, up until a 100 years ago were completely devoid of
fish. A lot of private hatcheries stocked the water including the
famous boulder rod and gun club. This activity *created* teh fishery.

2) There is also the consideration that stocked trout in places like
St. Vrain State Park, old gravel quarries, absorb a tremendous amount
of recreational pressure.

3) The license revenue generated from stocked trout draws interest and
moneys for research.

4) 100% of the Brown, Rainbow and Brook trout fishery is the
descendant result of stocking programs.

5) In many cases the very nicest fish you catch, one full of color,
fight and firm healthy trout is simply the multiple year hold over.

Personally, I get the Jones to bang a few stockers and eat them at
least once or twice a season. Some of the new diets makes the flesh
orange and the fish relatively tasty, especially brined and smoked.

I'm not too proud to crack a cool one and take a few of the stocked
trout out of he

http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/StVrain/

In fact, they did something pretty cool out there last year. What used
to be the back ponds that you could drive all around have been closed
off as hiking access only. If you walk a mile or two you can leave
just about all the rest of the fishermen.
Best regards,

Tim

If stocking is done with fry, or even fingerlings, in a natural
manner, and these fish are allowed to grow naturally, it can be, and
often is, extremely beneficial. Grown on stock fish rarely are, they
are a massive drain on resources. If that same money and effort was
invested in improving the environment, there would be far fewer
problems.

The argument that stocked fish relieve pressure on wild fish is an
attractive and plausible one, but when one considers the three pounds
minimum of wild fish protein required to produce one pound of stock
fish, it crumbles completely. This ratio n is actually often a great
deal higher. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, never works.

I have not eaten a stocked fish for nearly forty years now, and I
never will. I don´t eat any of the farmed stuff on offer either. I
know how it is produced, and have seen quite a few analyses of the
stuff.

Whatever, I am quite obviously wasting my time here.

TL
MC

stuff.

Whatever, I am quite obviously wasting my time here.

TL
MC

That was not a reflection on your post Tim, just a general
observation.

TL
MC

On Sep 16, 7:33 pm, Mike wrote:
On 17 Sep, 03:09, Halfordian Golfer wrote:



On Sep 16, 10:16 am, Mike wrote:

Good post Mike. There is definitely counter points to be,
respectfully, made.

1) In Colorado, there is an exceptional fishery in the mountain and
plain lakes that, up until a 100 years ago were completely devoid of
fish. A lot of private hatcheries stocked the water including the
famous boulder rod and gun club. This activity *created* teh fishery.

2) There is also the consideration that stocked trout in places like
St. Vrain State Park, old gravel quarries, absorb a tremendous amount
of recreational pressure.

3) The license revenue generated from stocked trout draws interest and
moneys for research.

4) 100% of the Brown, Rainbow and Brook trout fishery is the
descendant result of stocking programs.

5) In many cases the very nicest fish you catch, one full of color,
fight and firm healthy trout is simply the multiple year hold over.

Personally, I get the Jones to bang a few stockers and eat them at
least once or twice a season. Some of the new diets makes the flesh
orange and the fish relatively tasty, especially brined and smoked.

I'm not too proud to crack a cool one and take a few of the stocked
trout out of he

http://parks.state.co.us/Parks/StVrain/

In fact, they did something pretty cool out there last year. What used
to be the back ponds that you could drive all around have been closed
off as hiking access only. If you walk a mile or two you can leave
just about all the rest of the fishermen.
Best regards,

Tim

If stocking is done with fry, or even fingerlings, in a natural
manner, and these fish are allowed to grow naturally, it can be, and
often is, extremely beneficial. Grown on stock fish rarely are, they
are a massive drain on resources. If that same money and effort was
invested in improving the environment, there would be far fewer
problems.

The argument that stocked fish relieve pressure on wild fish is an
attractive and plausible one, but when one considers the three pounds
minimum of wild fish protein required to produce one pound of stock
fish, it crumbles completely. This ratio n is actually often a great
deal higher. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, never works.

I have not eaten a stocked fish for nearly forty years now, and I
never will. I don´t eat any of the farmed stuff on offer either. I
know how it is produced, and have seen quite a few analyses of the
stuff.

Whatever, I am quite obviously wasting my time here.

TL
MC

Hi Mike,

I do not think you're wasting your time at all. It is very much
appreciated here. There are a few waters in Colorado that have
warnings, mostly Mercury in some of the larger impoundments. Being so
far upstream (the San Juans) has always been, to me, like "If it's not
OK to eat a trout caught from 12,000', where *is* it safe to eat
trout. My daughter and her boyfriend caught and baked a large rainbow
from the stream below this and they claimed it made them ill and
caused mild hallucinations. No joking, please, they were very
concerned about it and I understand Mercury can cause this.

Still it seems that any 'material' difference between a fish that is
the product of aquaculture, such as that trout burniere from Chez
Pierre, is from a farm, likely from Idaho (though there are more
options these days), as opposed to a planted catchable (Stocker) is
minimal, if any. I think these places, like St. Vrain State Park as I
pointed out, have a place and I will continue to harvest once or twice
a year from these places.

While this will sound like heresy, I have eaten stockers from these
places that have been better table fare than some of the trout from
the 'wild' fisheries. Makes sense, a diet of ants and nymphs versus a
diet of paprika pellets? The best trout I've eaten was a very large
brown from Taylor Creek reservoir where there are grizzly shrimp and
various scuds.

Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable
fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for
food, so I do not feel unlimited catch and release of a wild fish is
more noble than catching and harvesting a fish that has been stocked
for that express purpose.

We have changed our very definition of quality angling as the result
of catch and release. At one time it was about the quality of the fish
caught and, more importantly, about engaging with the animal on
somewhat more natural terms regarding the number of people pursuing
it. A great day astream could be ruined by even a few other parties on
the creek or river. The opportunity for fishing an unspooked section
was a given. Now, we tolerate people in every other hole and have
exchanged catching and eating a few over catching and releasing
hundreds in a good day of ripping lips. I contend that this 'attitude'
is just as easily satiated by farm ponds as it is more wild sources.
Indeed, the catch and release 'tank' fishing is growing in
popularity.

This might seem orthogonal to your subject but I suggest that it is
not. Fishing, first and foremost, should be about reaping the bounty
of the earth. To ignore or to eschew what we produce as legitimate
"agriculture" efforts makes no sense to me. We augment what we eat all
the time. Yes, we find wile asparagus in the fence ditch some springs
if we get there first but, if we want asparagus, we normally have to
get it from a farmer. No question the former is usually better, but it
is not always the case.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable
fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for
food,

Boy, none of us saw *that* coming.

[snip of the same old tired song-and-dance]

So how's that self-loathing coming along?


Chuck Vance (a guilt complex runs through it)

In article .com,
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable
fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for
food, so I do not feel unlimited catch and release of a wild fish is
more noble than catching and harvesting a fish that has been stocked
for that express purpose.

I agree with this.

Lazarus

In article .com,
Halfordian Golfer wrote:

Please recall, however, that I believe the only ethically justifiable
fishing is that fishing which is intended to capture the animal for
food, so I do not feel unlimited catch and release of a wild fish is
more noble than catching and harvesting a fish that has been stocked
for that express purpose.

I had forgotten completely that you felt that way...g
Tom

On 17 Sep, 19:54, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

This might seem orthogonal to your subject but I suggest that it is
not. Fishing, first and foremost, should be about reaping the bounty
of the earth. To ignore or to eschew what we produce as legitimate
"agriculture" efforts makes no sense to me. We augment what we eat all
the time. Yes, we find wile asparagus in the fence ditch some springs
if we get there first but, if we want asparagus, we normally have to
get it from a farmer. No question the former is usually better, but it
is not always the case.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

That is basically an ethical standpoint, and although I agree with
most of it, it is a personal view.

Pressure on the environment is increasing all the time, and anything
which increases that pressure purely in order to produce inferior
creatures mainly as playthings, is not a good idea.

Many anglers consider themselves nature lovers and conservationists.
This is hardly reconcilable with angling for stocked fish. Not many
people go hunting for domesticated animals either.

Quite a few people who are made aware of how stocked trout are
produced cease to fish for them.

Also, the main reason for introducing catch and release on many
stocked trout fisheries, is that people don´t want the fish, they just
want to play with them. There are many instances of people catching
such fish on stocked non catch and release fisheries, and discarding
them afterwards.

One can not do much about these things, merely try to make people
aware of them. What the individual then decides to do, is a matter for
him to decide.

In those cases where catch and release is being used to relieve
pressure on wild fish stocks, it may be justifiable, although
personally I believe that catch and release is an angler management
tool, and has little to do with saving the fish. Catch and release of
stocked sterile fish, is a different matter, and is indeed purely an
angler management tool. More anglers pay more money to catch the same
fish.

The quality of the experience also deteriorates considerably. There
are invariably large concentrations of anglers at such places, and
their behaviour also changes. They often stand in one spot all day
long, guarding it fiercely.

Much of the happy anticipation of a normal river angler, who might
catch a nice fish on a river now and again, is gone. All the fish are
a certain size, much larger than one might catch under normal
conditions, and some are very large indeed. There are also many more
of them. Indeed, in many places there simply are no smaller fish at
all.

I don´t really think there are any solutions to these problems, they
have become normal, and people accept them as such.

The only way to solve many of the current problems, would be to reduce
the population considerably, and educate the rest, and this is not
likely to happen.

TL
MC

Articles like this one, ( extract from this link;
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodm...951686,00.html )


QUOTE
Atlantic Salmon

Who farms it? Mainly Norway, followed by Chile and the UK. Worldwide
production exceeds one million tonnes a year.

How? Juveniles are produced from eggs 'stripped' from female
broodstock by hand and artificially inseminated. They are reared in
freshwater tanks (as parr), then 'put to sea' (as smolts) in cages
housing 5,000 to 50,000 fish.

What's in it? The colourings astaxanthin (E161j) and canthaxanthin
(E161g) are used to dye flesh pink, though the permitted concentration
of canthaxanthin was reduced by the EU in 2002 due to links with
retina damage in humans. Fish are treated with antibiotics, some of
which may remain as residues, and routinely injected with vaccines.
The fungicide malachite green (a carcinogen) was banned last year, but
traces have since been found in four samples of Scottish salmon and
two from Norway. Because they are fed on fishmeal and oil extracted
from 'trash fish' living in polluted waters, farmed salmon may contain
cancer-causing PCBs, dioxins and mercury as well as pesticides. They
contain more fat than wild fish.

Are the fish harmed? Though intensive farms are cleaning up their act,
overstocking is still a problem. This contributes to the spread of
diseases such as ISA (infectious salmon anaemia). Fish are starved
before slaughter, then stunned with a blow to the head, followed by
gill cutting to bleed them to death. Some are anaesthetised in CO 2 ,
which irritates the gills, then bled.

What about the planet? Diseased salmon can easily escape from cages
and infect wild stock. Farmed fish that have lost their ability to
migrate can breed with wild salmon, diminishing their urge to spawn.
The chemicals cypermethrin, azamethiphos, teflubenzuron and emamectin
benzoate (used to treat sea lice), together with faecal waste, pollute
the oceans.

Rainbow Trout

Who farms it? France, Italy, Denmark and the UK. Britain produces
16,000 tonnes a year, or 35 million fish.

How? Young female brood stock are fed or injected with testosterone,
turning them into functional males; sperm from these 'males' contains
only X chromosomes, so resulting progeny are female (females mature
later than males, retaining better flesh quality). Equally common is
triploidy, where eggs are manipulated using heat or pressure to
produce sterile offspring; these grow more efficiently and cannot
breed with wild stock if they escape. Raised in freshwater tanks and
weaned on to fishmeal pellets, fry are transferred to earth ponds
('stews') or gravel raceways fed by rivers.

What's in it? The same E colourings are used for trout as for salmon.
Antibiotics and vaccines are routinely given for diseases such as PKD
(proliferative kidney disease) and ERM (enteric redmouth). Many trout
contain geosmin, a chemical produced by a soil bacterium which gives
the flesh a muddy taint, the result of poor water quality.

Are the fish harmed? Trout are kept at even higher stocking densities
than salmon, some equivalent to 27 portion-sized fish sharing a
bathtub of water. On muggy days, they gasp for breath. Fin damage and
injuries are common. Further stress is caused by grading, where trout
are pumped from the pond and filtered through grids to sort them by
size. Slaughter is by suffocation on ice (to increase shelf life),
though some favour CO +2baths or electrocution.

What about the planet? Trout may escape and breed with wild stock, or
spread disease.

UNQUOTE

Are increasing public awareness slowly. Other organisations are doing
their best to point out the problems and dangers, but as in many
things, money still rules.

There are very many people who simply refuse to believe what is
published on the matter anyway.

TL
MC

"Mike" wrote in message
ups.com...
On 17 Sep, 19:54, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

This might seem orthogonal to your subject
Halfordian Golfer
It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish.

That is basically an ethical standpoint, and although I agree with
most of it, it is a personal view.

.... this is a case of not knowing your moral ass from your ethical elbow.